5 ms·

Why is this downvoted? It's true: https://qz.com/519388/this-saudi-prince-now-owns-more-of-twitter-than-jack-dorsey-does/ https://qz.com/519388/this-saudi-pri

by Natsu 7y ago

Why is this downvoted? It's true: https://qz.com/519388/this-saudi-prince-now-owns-more-of-twitter-than-jack-dorsey-does/ https://qz.com/519388/this-saudi-prince-now-owns-more-of-twi... "Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud, who in 2011 invested $300 million in the social network, now owns 34.9 million shares of Twitter’s common stock, according to a new regulatory filing (pdf)." That is from 2015, but as far as I know he still owns a huge stake in the company. It would seem relevant when discussing SA's influence on Twitter, but I don't see it mentioned in the article for some reason.

duxup 7y ago
The downvotes are because the "infiltrated twitter" in the story has nothing to do with the investment.
- pseingatl 7y ago
  Sure. Nothing at all. Except that Prince Walid surrendered his investment to the same people who ran moles at Twitter. Nothing to see here. It's just a coincidence. Move along.
  - duxup 7y ago
    The story likely plays out just the same regardless... I get what you're saying but the whole "it's a conspiracy here is some unrelated thing I can't connect but I'm suspicious" thing is such an easy to do, the internet is full of it... I don't think it adds anything, or is even accurate. And let's say somehow that thing with the investment doesn't happen.... I don't think that changes the story or the lessons from it.
  - j-c-hewitt 7y ago
    They didn't really need the investment to plant the spies. He just applied for a job and got it. Any foreign spy can do the same and nothing will change.
    - Natsu 7y ago
      This seems to me like focusing on the trees instead of the forest. I would think that when discussing Saudi control over a company, we might be interested in more than just some low-level henchmen, but maybe the Saudi prince who owns a third of the company. To hear some other people talk, this is "conspiracy" territory now. But c'mon, we're supposed to believe that some nobody henchmen are solely responsible for this and ignore the fact that the Saudis own a third of the company.
      - duxup 7y ago
        >we're supposed to believe that some nobody henchmen are solely responsible for this and ignore the fact that the Saudis own a third of the company Without proof for your second part... yes.
- grandridge 7y ago
  I'm amazed at how naive people are on this site about how the world works. And go ahead and quote my reply with the > and tell me awkshuwaly how wrong I am.
  - duxup 7y ago
    You're awkshuwaly wrong in the sense that the whole story doesn't need any kind of conspiracy regarding owning twitter to occur.
    - grandridge 7y ago
      My original comment was sarcasm but it's pretty funny watching so many get so butthurt on this site. And there is no conspiracy either, it's pretty straightforward. The two don't need to be related, but they are. But obviously you are all espionage experts on top of being experts on everything else
      - duxup 7y ago
        >The two don't need to be related, but they are There's nothing to indicate they are.
- wpietri 7y ago
  I think that's a very strong claim. What's your evidence for it? I'm not saying the two things are related. But I'm happy to say that if I wanted to unduly influence a company, buying a significant part of it would be one of the things I'd look at.
  - duxup 7y ago
    > What's your evidence for it? Evidence for ... the investment being irrelevant? Can't prove a negative but there's nothing about the story that required any kind of investment to accomplish any of the events described.
    - wpietri 7y ago
      You made a positive claim that the two had nothing to do with one another. The kind of evidence that could prove that might include logs of conversations between Twitter execs and reps of Saudi investors. I agree that nothing has come to light demonstrating that their was behind-the-scenes influence in aid of this. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
- Natsu 7y ago
  Why should we focus exclusively on low level henchmen when there's a huge Saudi influence on Twitter like that one? Why should we believe that owning the single largest stake--one even larger than the Jack's--isn't relevant when discussing how they influence Twitter to get what they want?
  - duxup 7y ago
    Well to start the actual information in the story is about the folks involved... and they got all that done without any overarching conspiracy from ownership. So is the risk here some unproven ownership influence, or the something any given dude can just go and do if he can get a job?
slim 7y ago
je was arrested when MBS came to power in 2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-waleed-bin-talal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/world/middleeast/saudi-ar... he does not seem to be part of the "saudi intelligence community"

by Natsu 7y ago

duxup 7y ago

The downvotes are because the "infiltrated twitter" in the story has nothing to do with the investment.

pseingatl 7y ago
Sure. Nothing at all. Except that Prince Walid surrendered his investment to the same people who ran moles at Twitter. Nothing to see here. It's just a coincidence. Move along.
- duxup 7y ago
  The story likely plays out just the same regardless... I get what you're saying but the whole "it's a conspiracy here is some unrelated thing I can't connect but I'm suspicious" thing is such an easy to do, the internet is full of it... I don't think it adds anything, or is even accurate. And let's say somehow that thing with the investment doesn't happen.... I don't think that changes the story or the lessons from it.
- j-c-hewitt 7y ago
  They didn't really need the investment to plant the spies. He just applied for a job and got it. Any foreign spy can do the same and nothing will change.
  - Natsu 7y ago
    This seems to me like focusing on the trees instead of the forest. I would think that when discussing Saudi control over a company, we might be interested in more than just some low-level henchmen, but maybe the Saudi prince who owns a third of the company. To hear some other people talk, this is "conspiracy" territory now. But c'mon, we're supposed to believe that some nobody henchmen are solely responsible for this and ignore the fact that the Saudis own a third of the company.
    - duxup 7y ago
      >we're supposed to believe that some nobody henchmen are solely responsible for this and ignore the fact that the Saudis own a third of the company Without proof for your second part... yes.
grandridge 7y ago
I'm amazed at how naive people are on this site about how the world works. And go ahead and quote my reply with the > and tell me awkshuwaly how wrong I am.
- duxup 7y ago
  You're awkshuwaly wrong in the sense that the whole story doesn't need any kind of conspiracy regarding owning twitter to occur.
  - grandridge 7y ago
    My original comment was sarcasm but it's pretty funny watching so many get so butthurt on this site. And there is no conspiracy either, it's pretty straightforward. The two don't need to be related, but they are. But obviously you are all espionage experts on top of being experts on everything else
    - duxup 7y ago
      >The two don't need to be related, but they are There's nothing to indicate they are.
wpietri 7y ago
I think that's a very strong claim. What's your evidence for it? I'm not saying the two things are related. But I'm happy to say that if I wanted to unduly influence a company, buying a significant part of it would be one of the things I'd look at.
- duxup 7y ago
  > What's your evidence for it? Evidence for ... the investment being irrelevant? Can't prove a negative but there's nothing about the story that required any kind of investment to accomplish any of the events described.
  - wpietri 7y ago
    You made a positive claim that the two had nothing to do with one another. The kind of evidence that could prove that might include logs of conversations between Twitter execs and reps of Saudi investors. I agree that nothing has come to light demonstrating that their was behind-the-scenes influence in aid of this. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Natsu 7y ago
Why should we focus exclusively on low level henchmen when there's a huge Saudi influence on Twitter like that one? Why should we believe that owning the single largest stake--one even larger than the Jack's--isn't relevant when discussing how they influence Twitter to get what they want?
- duxup 7y ago
  Well to start the actual information in the story is about the folks involved... and they got all that done without any overarching conspiracy from ownership. So is the risk here some unproven ownership influence, or the something any given dude can just go and do if he can get a job?

slim 7y ago

je was arrested when MBS came to power in 2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-waleed-bin-talal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/world/middleeast/saudi-ar... he does not seem to be part of the "saudi intelligence community"